Amazon.com Widgets
  • Firearms can be allowed without specifically making them a "right."

    For a variety of reasons, many individuals who have committed no previous wrong doing must not be allowed to own a firearm. This includes, for example, paranoid schizophrenics. This very fact disqualifies bearing arms from being a "right" in the first place. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness already protects an individuals ability to provide security for himself and his family. Firearms should fall under the same category as any other dangerous possession, and government should have full authority to legislate their use.

  • It shouldn't be eliminated entirely.

    However, the present day interpretation of the amendment by conservative politicians was not the original intent; the intent was to allow citizens to form a militia for defense when necessary as there was no standing army when the constitution was written. This is no longer the case; thus there is no reason for citizens to have possession of military-grade assault weapons. In addition, for citizens to purchase a gun, they should be required to go through an extensive background check, to prevent people such as white supremacists from purchasing weapons.

  • No it should not

    No the constitution is sacred and should not be tampered with. Besides people should have a gun to protect their family from violent people who ended up getting gun anyway regardless of it being legal or not. I think if the government wants to eliminate that right then they should get all the illegal guns off of the streets first.

  • Keep right to bear arms

    If you take away legal ownership of guns, you keep law abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves. It's not the guns that are the problem...It's the heart of the owners that poses a problem. Our nation was given this law for a reason. It just seems our "political correctness" has made us a nation without common sense.

  • No, the right to bear arms in our right!

    If we do not have the right to bear arms, then crime will rise just like in Canada and Europe! All the law abiding citizens will turn in their guns, but all the criminals will have their guns and not have any fear of committing crimes. Your chances of being robbed, rapped, or murdered will rise substantially because their is no longer the fear of someone being armed!

  • Not feasible

    I'm very anti-gun and find it beyond comprehension how some rifle are still on the market, but banning firearms outright isn't a realistic option. Making them extremely difficult to obtain, banning SOME of them and trying to give mental health the resources it's needed for so many decades are your best chance at fixing this broken culture.

  • No, The Right To Bear Arms Should Remain Intact

    The right-to-bear-arms laws are in need of a huge overhaul, but they should not be eliminated altogether. It's important within reason for some people to carry weapons for reasons of self-defense or environment. There are individuals who live in areas with significant wildlife, and it is perfectly understandable that they need access to weapons. I think the majority of us living in urban and suburban environments should have to undergo a rigorous application process in order to obtain weapons. It should not be considered normal or healthy to own assault weapons when you are a regular civilian.

  • No the right to bear arms should not be eliminated.

    I think instead of eliminating the right to bear arms we should be more cautious on who we give gun permits to. It should be a difficult, long and expensive process to go through if you would like to legally own a gun. I also believe there should be a psychological evaluation to make sure you are mentally stable enough to own a firearm.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.